Well, if they're really making money off of it (and 2.5 billion views sound like money) it only seems fair to subject them to the same rules like offline commercial cover artists. So, as long as the industry is not pushing for more than that, this might actually make sense.

Well, if they're really making money off of it (and 2.5 billion views sound like money) it only seems fair to subject them to the same rules like offline commercial cover artists. So, as long as the industry is not pushing for more than that, this might actually make sense.

Exactly. Even a broken *AA clock is right once a century. This is a large, for-profit business not Joe Somebody noodling on his guitar.

... I'm all for random individuals being able to put a video of themselves singing their favorite song online, but this does seem more like a rather large and organized company using the copyrighted work of others.

it has 15,000 YouTube channels with more than 200 million subscribers, producing more than 2.5 billion unique views per month.

Okay, as a layman this sounds like a lot but how much money does that actually bring in? What kind of money are we talking about here?

Secondly, the 'mechanical license' was done to make things easy for everyone. Why don't they make a law like that for the 'synchronization license'? Sounds better than the MPAA suing everyone all over the place.

Could you evade this by covering the song but replacing the lyrics with an instrument of the same pitch?

Modifying the song substantially to avoid paying royalties would land you in a worse situation -- not only do you look like a complete douchebag, they'll sue you for even more royalties, and the best outcome is the licensing agreement you were trying to evade in the first place.

Well, if they're really making money off of it (and 2.5 billion views sound like money) it only seems fair to subject them to the same rules like offline commercial cover artists. So, as long as the industry is not pushing for more than that, this might actually make sense.

It seems like the reason why people listen to and view these user-made versions is not because they replicate the original closely for a fraction of the price, it's the added value by the person/group covering the song. It's the things that make it different; a custom interpretation/performance. Why should the original writer get paid for that? That's like the person that created the first hamburger getting paid for every hamburger sold at every restaurant for 70+ years (or however ridiculously long music copy-writes are for). It's insane!

Wouldn't something like this be protected under Fair Use? It's not like Fullscreen is selling these cover bands/artists work for profit. It looks like they do a lot of legitimate work with NBC and 20th Century Fox, so not all of these views are coming form the cover bands. I wouldn't be surprised if the bands make up less than 10% of their traffic. It feels like copywright companies are trying to reach for what they can here, and I'm not so sure their claims are 100% on base here.

Well, if they're really making money off of it (and 2.5 billion views sound like money) it only seems fair to subject them to the same rules like offline commercial cover artists. So, as long as the industry is not pushing for more than that, this might actually make sense.

It seems like the reason why people listen to and view these user-made versions is not because they replicate the original closely for a fraction of the price, it's the added value by the person/group covering the song. It's the things that make it different; a custom interpretation/performance. Why should the original writer get paid for that? That's like the person that created the first hamburger getting paid for every hamburger sold at every restaurant for 70+ years (or however ridiculously long music copy-writes are for). It's insane!

Well, if they're really making money off of it (and 2.5 billion views sound like money) it only seems fair to subject them to the same rules like offline commercial cover artists. So, as long as the industry is not pushing for more than that, this might actually make sense.

It seems like the reason why people listen to and view these user-made versions is not because they replicate the original closely for a fraction of the price, it's the added value by the person/group covering the song. It's the things that make it different; a custom interpretation/performance. Why should the original writer get paid for that? That's like the person that created the first hamburger getting paid for every hamburger sold at every restaurant for 70+ years (or however ridiculously long music copy-writes are for). It's insane!

What bullshit. A song is not a hamburger recipe.

I don't think so. You just have to listen to some of the better cover bands to realize that they really do offer an original spin to the song. No two performances are equal. Likewise, no two burgers are equal and gastronomy is art too. Edit: Just to complement, there is a lot of interpretation involved in music, so a song IS a recipe, in a way.

Well, if they're really making money off of it (and 2.5 billion views sound like money) it only seems fair to subject them to the same rules like offline commercial cover artists. So, as long as the industry is not pushing for more than that, this might actually make sense.

It seems like the reason why people listen to and view these user-made versions is not because they replicate the original closely for a fraction of the price, it's the added value by the person/group covering the song. It's the things that make it different; a custom interpretation/performance. Why should the original writer get paid for that? That's like the person that created the first hamburger getting paid for every hamburger sold at every restaurant for 70+ years (or however ridiculously long music copy-writes are for). It's insane!

What bullshit. A song is not a hamburger recipe.

I don't think so. You just have to listen to some of the better cover bands to realize that they really do offer an original spin to the song. No two performances are equal. Likewise, no two burgers are equal and gastronomy is art too.

What do you think about DJs?

If I write a song and you perform that song, no matter badly or beautifully, and you make money with my song, you rightfully and legally owe me money. Try as you may to weasel out of it, it's still my song.

Clearly you recognize the value of my song, or you would write your own damn song.

It seems like the reason why people listen to and view these user-made versions is not because they replicate the original closely for a fraction of the price, it's the added value by the person/group covering the song. It's the things that make it different; a custom interpretation/performance. Why should the original writer get paid for that? That's like the person that created the first hamburger getting paid for every hamburger sold at every restaurant for 70+ years (or however ridiculously long music copy-writes are for). It's insane!

Your hamburger analogy is not valid. One is the work of an individual creating something uniquely identifiable, the other the result of society iterating over time to establish common ways of preparing food. And this is where you'll say, "but all music takes from the music created before it!" That's somewhat true. But the idea of a hamburger is a closer equivalent to iambic pentameter or a 4/4 meter, not an individual artistic expression created by using iambic pentameter. (By the way, if you write up a bunch of recipes and compile them, like a cookbook, you can actually copyright them.)

An artist writes the lyrics and notes to a song and they get a copyright on their creative work. It is their creative output, and they have a right to benefit from it for a time. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but how would you feel if you wrote a song, put it out but got little traction, then someone else recorded it, got rich and famous because of it, and was busy traveling around the world playing it while you got absolutely no compensation in return, leaving you sitting at home eating ramen noodles waiting on your next shift to start? Copyright means you get to own your creative output, and grant rights to others to use it. You can choose to do that for free or for compensation, but it's your decision to make.

Fans and musicians uploading cover songs to youtube and generating a little buzz for their base talents is one thing, and when their reward is basically recognition not something worth being upset about. But when they start making real money, or in this case becoming a full fledged business making profits off the success of over people's talents, they need to pay for the rights to do so.

It seems like the reason why people listen to and view these user-made versions is not because they replicate the original closely for a fraction of the price, it's the added value by the person/group covering the song. It's the things that make it different; a custom interpretation/performance. Why should the original writer get paid for that? That's like the person that created the first hamburger getting paid for every hamburger sold at every restaurant for 70+ years (or however ridiculously long music copy-writes are for). It's insane!

The original writer should get paid for that because he/she wrote it, and it's copyrighted. Cover artists can change the arrangement, but they don't substantially change the lyrics or tune.

If FullScreen isn't paying royalties on covers they distribute, then they are engaging in non-digital piracy. Instead of distributing pirated MP3s, they're distributing pirated music and lyrics.

I submit my own hamburger analogy: FullScreen is trying to change the ingredients on a specific chain's burgers, sell it for profit, and still expect to get the hamburgers for free. Resell as much McDonald's as you want, but you better pay if you're using their patties.

I submit my own hamburger analogy: FullScreen is trying to change the ingredients on a specific chain's burgers, sell it for profit, and still expect to get the hamburgers for free. Resell as much McDonald's as you want, but you better pay if you're using their patties.

I don't think I'm getting the same thing out of your example as you are. This seems like a clear example of how ridiculous it would be to pay McDonalds just because they came up with a specific recipe for a hamburger.

When you cover a song, you own the performance, but the writer/composer still owns the words/music. If you cover Elton John, he doesn't get a cut, but his song-writer(s) do. And should. That is what this is about.

I don't have a problem with this. If it was just folks putting up covers and not making any money, that's one thing (especially since YouTube has a system in place for paying royalties).

But building a business model around people playing covers? Yeah, you're gonna have to pony up some money to utilize my work in that case, folks. Physical venues have to do it, so do digital venues.

I don't think they're building a business around these artists, though. A good portion of their traffic goes to NBC and 20th Century Fox content viewers. I think they only actual profit they're making off the artists is whatever ad gets run along side their cover. The only counter to this I can think of is local businesses having live entertainment, playing cover songs. But I think that's only because their profits go up from the performance being there, not so much that they charge admission. I thought they would have been protected from the Fair Use act, and maybe they thought they were too; they do seem to pay royalties to NBC and Fox already.

Your hamburger analogy is not valid. One is the work of an individual creating something uniquely identifiable, the other the result of society iterating over time to establish common ways of preparing food. And this is where you'll say, "but all music takes from the music created before it!" That's somewhat true. But the idea of a hamburger is a closer equivalent to iambic pentameter or a 4/4 meter, not an individual artistic expression created by using iambic pentameter. (By the way, if you write up a bunch of recipes and compile them, like a cookbook, you can actually copyright them.).

While one can certainly come up with a recipe for making hamburgers(that have a particular required procedure, added ingredients,) "hamburger" is not a recipe.

IME recipes as they are altered and prepared are as unique as the cooks doing the preparation. In addition, recipes can be as simple as one ingredient and action or they may contain hundreds of different ingredients and steps.

Is there a point at which a recipe is complicated enough that it should need copyright protection? If not, why not?

Thompson wouldn't exist without his mother and father. Do they deserve a cut as well?

I was about to make the same argument. You can extend the "X wouldn't exist without Y" logic ad ridiculum, and I think we're already kind of there.

I imagine I might be part of an unpopular minority here, but I hope I'm not the only one troubled by the increasing trend to try to squeeze as much money possible out of artistic creativity. Why should a few lyrical phrases or chord progressions deserve the same sort of copyright protection as a lengthy novel?

Music and musicians have survived and thrived for millennia without modern financial copyrights. It is impossible to perfectly recreate/replicate live showmanship, so even if musicians never made another cent from music sales, they could still live like rock stars if they performed well enough.

I'm not suggesting that artists shouldn't receive some sort of compensation for their recordings. However, the idea that these people (or usually the massive corporations that exploit them) should have exclusive rights to a few dozen words strung together or something as relatively simple as a melody layered with a chord progression seems downright greedy and problematic to me.

tough boysSueing the streetsCome a little closer (to bankruptcy)Rough toysUnder the sheetsWith a million lawyers

I changed the lyrics enough, they'll never get me!

Yes that is covered by the copyright law.

Make substantial changes and it is a new work that is merely similar to the predecessor work and the new work is eligible for it's own copyright.

Check out Homer and Jethro on YouTube. They wrote parodies of the most popular music of their day and many of the top selling artists considered it an honor when Homer and Jethro lampooned the artist's new hit song.

(By the way, if you write up a bunch of recipes and compile them, like a cookbook, you can actually copyright them.)

Just to clarify - Recipes are not copyrightable. If you made a whole cookbook, everything else can be copyrighted, but not the recipes themselves.

Recipes cannot be patented, either.

Recipes are nothing more than a list of instructions - you also can't copyright instructions on how to build a chair.

And yet software (which is nothing more than a list of instructions for a computer) can be both copyrighted and patented.

Figure that one out.

And sheet music or lyrics is just a set of instructions for a musician or singer.

How about standardising a single approach that actually made sense?

And a book is merely instructions for the reader to follow ... each reading of the book is a unique performance that is different every time the work is performed.

In the performance arts, the composition or script is copyrighted. The performer(s) can record the performance and get a separate copyright on the performance or simply ban recording altogether exercising their author's rights to prevent any redisplay of the performance. The performance does not cancel the rights of the creator of the work being performed, it only adds a new component that is copyrighted as a separate artwork.

This approach has multiple chapters in US copyright law that are quite complex and hard to follow due to an attempt to cover all the possible combinations involved in composition, performance, recording, broadcast, rebroadcast and more.

What about instructional videos? Say I play the guitar along with a song faintly in the back ground so that you can see the fingerings used (the camera focuses purely on the hands) - is that still a cover and will that be considered a violation?

What about instructional videos? Say I play the guitar along with a song faintly in the back ground so that you can see the fingerings used (the camera focuses purely on the hands) - is that still a cover and will that be considered a violation?

Croaking is already covered ... all those Karaoke recordings you can buy are licensed recordings. The DJs at karaoke events have performance licenses & venues offering DJ free karaoke are supposed to have a venue license. The karaoke jukebox is licensed through the owner of the jukebox. Homebrew karaoke posted to Youtube definitely is covered by this.